Forum

December 09, 2012

I talk too much, I know. Blog entries are supposed to be short, sweet, Tweetable...

Anyway: I can't stop obsessing about the possible (not definite) disconnect between what editors think readers want and what readers do want. I think I know, but how many of my decisions are really based on that criterion, and how many of them are based on what *I* like and what I think others should like?

So, I would like to use this week's post to ask readers of all stripes to answer this question for me: What do you like to read? Which types of plot, which sub-genres, which authors, and why? If you also include details of what you do not like, I am sure that would be enlightening, too.

I'm forever arguing to anyone who'll listen that we have to do a better job of listening to readers. The challenge for me is that I can't quite separate the strands of readers from writers. So many of the most prolific Internet commentators about mystery/crime fiction are also writers (either published or aspiring). How much overlap is there between what writers want to read and what non-writing readers want to read? It's a Venn diagram, to be sure; but where do the similarities end and the differences begin?

So, please feel free to hit the "Comment" below and give your answer. I'd love to get a lot of responses to this question, so please feel free to Tweet, Retweet, Facebook, etc. In your answer, please tell me a little about yourself - are you a writer, librarian, voracious or occasional reader, industry professional, etc.? I can't guarantee these comments will cause me to change my acquisitions philosophy drastically, but they will certainly inform it.

****

ON ANOTHER NOTE: A while back, I wrote what turned out to be a popular post titled "For God's Sake, Buy Your Friends' Books," in which I vented about the all-too-common situation in which published writers' friends and relatives don't buy or read their books.

This week I had an interesting response to that posting. Someone wrote (I paraphrase): "Well, the reason I don't buy friends' books is - What if I don't like the book? How do I finesse that?"

July 10, 2012

Next week, I promise, I will get back to the "fun" stuff about manuscripts, crime fiction, things I've read and liked, things that should never have been published in the first place, etc. For now though, I have one more question, as a follow-up to last week's question.

This time I would love to hear not only from writers but also from readers, whether casual or voracious, hobby-based or professional (librarians). I feel as though the future of our industry lies in having these conversations - We've been insular for too long. Looking back to my earlier employment at one of the Big Six, I realize I spent much of my life dodging people - would-be writers, agents I didn't like, people who managed to get to me despite gatekeepers and all the other apparatus we erected to keep the public out.

It was done so as not to be overwhelmed - and to be able to "focus." Now, though, I feel as though I can't just sit here and pronounce, because the market is making itself heard and we have to listen to it.

So, this is the question I would like to pose:

What can we publishers do better? What can we do to get attention for books and writers?

Now, I ask that responses (click the Comment button below) follow a few general guidelines:

-They aren't diatribes against traditional publishing today.

-They are serious about suggesting new ways of doing things.

-They make financial sense. I'm sure many will suggest advertising more, but we know that doesn't work. There will be suggestions about sending more authors out on tour - we know that doesn't cover its costs, either. Then again, I can't really expect the average reader to know these sorts of things, so suggest away and we'll see what we can come up with.

I started thinking about this as a result of an email conversation with a favorite writer of mine, someone who sadly has not published a new book in over a decade. I said in that correspondence, "If I knew what to do to sell more books and break more authors, I would do it." The conventional wisdom isn't holding any more (not that there was ever a guaranteed formula), so maybe now is the time to try something new, bold, daring....

Next week, I promise, I will get back to the "fun" stuff about manuscripts, crime fiction, things I've read and liked, things that should never have been published in the first place, etc. For now though, I have one more question, as a follow-up to last week's question.

This time I would love to hear not only from writers but also from readers, whether casual or voracious, hobby-based or professional (librarians). I feel as though the future of our industry lies in having these conversations - We've been insular for too long. Looking back to my earlier employment at one of the Big Six, I realize I spent much of my life dodging people - would-be writers, agents I didn't like, people who managed to get to me despite gatekeepers and all the other apparatus we erected to keep the public out.

It was done so as not to be overwhelmed - and to be able to "focus." Now, though, I feel as though I can't just sit here and pronounce, because the market is making itself heard and we have to listen to it.

So, this is the question I would like to pose:

What can we publishers do better? What can we do to get attention for books and writers?

Now, I ask that responses (click the Comment button below) follow a few general guidelines:

-They aren't diatribes against traditional publishing today.

-They are serious about suggesting new ways of doing things.

-They make financial sense. I'm sure many will suggest advertising more, but we know that doesn't work. There will be suggestions about sending more authors out on tour - we know that doesn't cover its costs, either. Then again, I can't really expect the average reader to know these sorts of things, so suggest away and we'll see what we can come up with.

I started thinking about this as a result of an email conversation with a favorite writer of mine, someone who sadly has not published a new book in over a decade. I said in that correspondence, "If I knew what to do to sell more books and break more authors, I would do it." The conventional wisdom isn't holding any more (not that there was ever a guaranteed formula), so maybe now is the time to try something new, bold, daring....

July 03, 2012

Reading some of the comments here, I would like to pose a question to the writers/aspiring novelists who read this blog.

If you respond, not only will I see your comments, but other agents, editors, and publishers will, too. I know that several of these Esteemed Personages read this blog at least occasionally.

So here is the question:

*Writers say they want honest feedback on their ideas and their manuscript. But do you REALLY want honest, no-holds-barred feedback?

Here's the reason I ask. In the past, I used to get polite thank-you notes from those whose manuscripts I did not accept. I still do, but I also get responses telling me how wrong I am and how sorry I'll be. And this is even after I've gone out of my way to say something nice or positive about the manuscript.

Your book is competent, but there's nothing exciting or interesting about it. The market's too tough, and too filled with established people who deliver the goods, for this manuscript to have a chance.

The premise of this book is downright silly.

I'm sorry, but you really don't write well. Sentences are clunky, dialogue is wooden. In a genre dominated by some really superb writers (Michael Connelly, Laura Lipmann, et al.), how can I publish your manuscript and have any confidence that it will sell?

I know that mixing genres is probably fun to do as a writer, but you should write this stuff for yourself and friends, or maybe self-publish it, because it's almost impossible to find a market for so-called "cross-over books."

October 02, 2011

I'm always thinking about the connections among the different forms of "entertainment commerce" - publishing, movies, TV, music, and so on. It seems to me that in all these industries, successful people get forced into doing the same thing over and over again, with the public belittling or downright rejecting attempts to break out of the mold.

What this comes down to, in any of the media, is the idea of "one person = one identity." Thus actors are typecast; rock singers can't suddenly start singing rap; and writers must continue to write the same characters with more or less the same story.

This led to an interesting discussion in the office this past week. We wondered:

Suppose only two options are possible for writers (both quite good). The first scenario: Author writes a blockbuster, but then never again writes a hit book. We know of the famous cases (like Harper Lee, of To Kill a Mockinbgird fame, and John Kennedy Toole, with his Confederacy of Dunces, which was published posthumously.) But there are plenty of much-beloved and admired mystery writers whose output was or has been far from prodigious. The late and much-missed Sarah Caudwell took a decade between books sometimes, and even one of my favorites, George Dawes Green, has had limited output. Charles Mathes, a personal favorite, gave up his novelistic career after four wonderful books that I still recommend everywhere I go. We editors can cajole, plead, and try to inspire - but it's the writer who writes the work while we sit back and wait for it.

The second scenario: Author has a cult following and writes a book a year for 20 years, never really breaking into the big time and selling just enough copies to keep the publisher interested. A tremendous number of crime writers fall into this category.

Which scenario would most writers prefer?

My guess is that most would go for #2. As a publisher, though, I'd choose #1. Blockbuster books often continue selling years and decades later, and a healthy backlist is just wonderful for the bottom line. Once the work is written, keeping it in stock is relatively little work with very nice payoff for both publisher and author. That revenue provides us with so much of what we need to continue our work: an income stream, money to take chances on new writers, attempts to keep up with the changing marketplace and all these electronic initiatives.

In contrast, #2 is a lot of work for relatively little income/profit. The truth of this statement helps explain why, in an era where profits/black ink rule the day, many publishers lose hope after the third or fourth book. The conventional wisdom (I'm not saying it's accurate, though it may be) is that if the author hasn't hit it by that point, s/he's never going to. At that point, continuing to invest resources in a cult figure becomes either fan service or simply relationship-based: author and editor have a good relationship, editor can convince various higher-ups that the small profit on Author X is better than a loss on Unknown Y.

I think it's that perpetual search for the New Blockbuster that keeps us motivated as Editors. When we've signed up someone who makes it big, we're like the proud parents of Rhodes Scholars. Our midlist authors are those reliable oldest children who have a special place in our hearts but whose limitations we realize. As for those underperforming or problematic children, who continue to require our attention or make demands that we're unwilling to meet, they are kicked out of the nest to make their way in the world.

In the meantime, I think there are some takeaway points. The first, of course, is that the way you treat your editor really does matter when it comes time to decide whether or not you get a contract for your next book. The second is one of the joys of the independent or small press. We have lower thresholds for what we consider successful, which means that a "flop" at one house might be quite a hit for a smaller house. Over the long run, this might mean more revenue from a smaller house than from a larger house; and, of course, there are plenty of well-known people who started with a smaller house and then "graduated" into the big leagues. I think independent presses have getting more attention in the last couple of years, though we still experience some prejudice. (I never tire of telling the story of an author, very active on a listserv, who wrote an enthusiastic email to our publicist, asking if he'd be willing to present to her group. As soon as she found out that our publicist works for a small press, she stopped answering emails and went from gung-ho to totally uninterested. A number of years ago now, but everyone in our office knows her name and has a good laugh over the phenomenon that we've named after her - but which I can't say here, of course.) Still, I wouldn't want to be anywhere else!

September 02, 2011

Here, on the eve of Labor Day, I am going to let someone else do the writing for me. From The Week, September 2, 2011:

Mysteries without Mystery

Have you ever been tempted to flip to the end of a mystery novel? Go ahead: Suspense, a new study has found, is irrelevant to our enjoyment of a story. In fact, say researchers at the University of California at San Diego, most people like stories more if they know in advance how the story will end--even with plots than hinge on a mystery or a twist. The researchers set up different versions of 12 short stories written by authors such as Agatha Christie, Raymond Carver, and Anton Chekhov. One came with an introduction that spoiled the ending; one had a spoiler embedded in the middle of the text; and a third appeared just as its author had written it. Suprisingly, readers who learned the endings of their stories up front reported liking them much more on a scale of one to 10 than did readers of the other two versions. Why? The pleasure readers get from a good story, Jonathan Leavitt tells BBCNews.com, has far more to do with the quality of the writing and the character development than with a nail-biting plot. Once a reader knows how a story will turn out, he or she "can focus on a deeper understanding of the story."

Anyone care to weigh in on this? I think we've all seen books where the author tells us up front what happened, and then lets the story unfold - and these can be effective. But a steady diet of revealing the truth upfront so that we can "enjoy" the book more? I have my doubts.

October 24, 2010

This is a question I have been thinking about lately. Why, you may ask?

As many readers do, I go in cycles. I like to keep up with as much of what's going on now as I can (an impossible task, unfortunately) but I'll get into certain grooves, where (for example) I'll realize that I haven't read a good hardboiled in a while--which will set me off on a bunch of hardboiled books I've been wanting to read.

I recently had this experience with the British mystery. I realized I hadn't read a good non-best-seller British mystery in a while (e.g., not P.D. James, not Ruth Rendell) and I felt it was time to get back to those quietly sinister English villages and their people. Along the way, I found some really terrific books and writers. One of these was Stuart MacBride, a Scot who writes procedurals following Detective Logan McRae of Aberdeen; the others were of the more traditional English bent, examining village life, politics, and the like.

Let me recommend MacBride quite highly, because (a) he's a terrific writer, (b) I haven't seem him get much press on these shores, and (c) I think McRae is the most likable (albeit imperfect--i.e., human) cop I've read in quite a while. But I digress from the rhetorical question above.

As I usually do, when I finished reading two books by well-established (and formerly bestselling) English writers, I went to look up reviews, both professional and amateur. And when I say well-established, I mean people who are part of the Great Tradition, who've been writing for a long time and whose contributions are acknowledged not only by reviewers but also in terms of sales. I read fairly recent hardcovers by both these people, which caused me to look at my shelves and dig out dusty old paperbacks from the 1970s and 1980s by those same writers.

But when I started to dig, I encountered something disturbing. Both books/authors had not received good reviews in the U.S. press. What? I asked myself, rereading the reviews, both of which contained a suspect phrase: "U.S. readers." Reviewers of both books pointed out that the books were not likely to appeal to American audiences, due to the "emotional distance" of the lead characters. Certainly the characters in the novels did exhibit the emotional reserve so long associated with the English, but is this enough reason to pan a book--because you prefer a swooping drama queen as a protagonist, rather than an introspective person who doesn't wear her or his heart on the sleeve?

And then I dug further and was even more disheartened. I happen to know the editors who sponsor these books on American soil; and they confided in me that the sales were horrible. Editors (and, dare I say, authors) ALWAYS inflate sales numbers, but the numbers they quoted shocked me. And almost all of them came from the library channel, which means that almost no readers in the U.S. bought these books.

Huh?

So, what does one make of this?

On the one hand, I suppose that U.S. mystery has finally emerged from the shadows of our British influence. For many years, I think, American writers labored under a sort of "anxiety of influence," looking to the classic English practitioners and feeling very much cowed by them. Now that our shores have produced a slew of great (or even just competent) crime novelists, maybe we don't need to look abroad so much.

I suppose it's also possible that these two books just were not particularly good; and I think I'd agree that they were not among their authors' best works. But we all know of many, many situations where people keep reading books by authors they like, even as the author's output has been going steadily downhill in terms of quality.

Or is it that tastes have changed? Yes, I think that's it. And as much as I hate to admit it, the savvy reviewers quoted above seem to have put their fingers on it. I don't think we're much for subtlety in this country any more. When something bad happens to us, we go on Oprah, write a book, start a nonprofit foundation, make as much noise as we possibly can to get "publicity" for our cause. This is quite the opposite of at least my perception of the English national character, in a culture where people suck up a lot and don't say much, and certainly don't complain bitterly to anyone who will listen--perhaps because no one in the British Isles will listen to such rantings. (A really lovely book about this very phenomenon is Alexander McCall Smith's La's Orchestra Saves the World.)

Have we become a nation so obsessed with "authentic emotion" that we assume that anyone not crying, carrying on, screaming, or holing himself/herself up in a mental institution is not "real"? Because the protags of these two books had indeed suffered tragedy and were indeed going on with their lives. What, exactly, would American readers have them do? Quit their jobs and sit home crying into their teacups? Break up their marriages or engage in other emotional histrionics?

These are rhetorical questions, of course. It may be unfair to paint a portrait of the "American reader," but in this industry (as indeed in all entertainment industries), we have to know who our consumers are and what they want. And we seem to be at a place and time where the market is not clamoring for subtlety.

We also get the chicken-and-egg phenomenon here. Did the books not do well because those less-than-stellar reviews didn't set them up properly? Perhaps, but I think not. In our office we follow most of the well-followed blogs and listservs, and the names of these two writers are almost never mentioned. Is it because their readership is "older" and less likely to blog themselves silly? Is it because the authors themselves haven't established an online presence with engineered "product placements"? These are all tricky questions, and I'd love any insights that readers of Mysterious Matters are willing to share.

A QUICK UPDATE: Maxine (Petrona) pointed out, quite rightly, that I was perhaps inappropriately conflating the English with the Scottish (and other British peoples), so I've adjusted the wording to this post. I also would like to note that I came across today "the other side of the coin." I was doodling around on the Internet and found some links that led me to Amazon.co.uk, and readers' reviews of the American phenomenon, EAT PRAY LOVE. What I found were many UK reviewers who had little patience with, and equally little ability to identify with, Elizabeth Gilbert's emotional self-indulgence. There were many in the U.S. who felt this way also, I hasten to add; but those UK reviews were quite eye-opening to me, especially in light of the question I ask as the title of this blog entry.

February 18, 2010

I am pleased to introduce the panelists who will be taking part in Mysterious Matters’ first-ever online panel discussion. The topic will be ORIGINALITY IN CRIME FICTION, and it will take place this coming Saturday (February 20) via Internet.

The discussion is taking place via Yahoo Instant Messenger, so please check back next week, when I’ll post the discussion. I’d like to thank all the panelists in advance.

VICKI DELANY’s newest Constable Molly Smith novel, WINTER OF SECRETS, received a starred review from Publishers Weekly, which said, “she uses…artistry as sturdy and restrained as a Shaker chair.” Vicki writes everything from standalone novels of suspense (BURDEN OF MEMORY), to the traditional village/police procedural Molly Smith series, to a light-hearted historical series (GOLD DIGGER) set in the heyday of the Klondike Gold Rush. Vicki lives in rural Prince Edward County, Ontario. You can visit Vicki on the Web at www.vickidelany.com.

JACK GETZE edits short fiction for Spinetingler Magazine, and spent nine years as a news and feature writer for the Los Angeles Times. His suspense novels, BIG NUMBERS and BIG MONEY, feature screwball stockbroker Austin Carr, and "have that same feel and style of writers such as John D. MacDonald," says Bloodstained Book Reviews. You can visit Jack on the Web at www.jackgetze.com.

LIBBY FISCHER HELLMANN is the author of DOUBLEBACK, the second Georgia Davis PI novel (October, 2009, Bleak House). In it Davis is paired with video producer and single mother Ellie Foreman, the protagonist of Libby's other 4-book series. Libby also writes short stories and edited the acclaimed CHICAGO BLUES. She lives in the Chicago area.

WENDY HORNSBY is the author of eight mystery novels, six of them in the Maggie MacGowen series, and many short stories. She has received the Edgar Allan Poe Award (the “Edgar”); its French equivalent, le Grand Prix de Littérature Policiere, and The American Mystery Award from Mystery Scene Magazine. Critics have describes her mysteries as “refreshing, real, and raunchy” (NY Times) and “unusually poignant” (LA Times). Wendy and her husband live in Southern California, where she is Professor of History at Long Beach City College.

NANCY MEANS WRIGHT has published 15 books of fiction, nonfiction, and poems, including 5 mystery novels (St. Martin’s Press), a mystery novella (Worldwide), and now MIDNIGHT FIRES (Perseverance Press), based on the life of 18th century feminist Mary Wollstonecraft. Her children’s mysteries received an ’06 Agatha Award for Best Children’s/YA Novel, and an ‘08 Agatha nomination. A longtime teacher and Bread Loaf Scholar for her first novel, Wright lives with her spouse and two Maine Coon cats in the environs of Middlebury, Vermont. You can visit her on the Web at www.nancymeanswright.com.

Derringer Award-winning author EARL STAGGS has seen many of his short stories published in magazines and anthologies. He served as Managing Editor of Futures Mystery Anthology Magazine and as President of the Short Mystery Fiction Society. His column “Write Tight” appears in Apollo’s Lyre at http://apollos-lyre.tripod.com/ and he is a member of Make Mine Mystery at http://makeminemystery.blogspot.com/. He is the author of MEMORY OF A MURDER.

November 11, 2009

Occasionally I like to venture into uncharted waters--you know, those books published by large houses. (Yes, they are indeed worthy despite not being published by small presses....)

I'm about to take off for a trip and have narrowed down my choices to 3, all of which are sitting on my shelf, awaiting me to pull one off and stick my bookmark in.

Readers: Please tell me which of these three you would recommend, and why. Use the "Comments" button below so that everyone else can see your comment, or email me directly.

CHOICE #1

THE SWEETNESS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PIE, by Alan Bradley

I have heard good things, but this one seems to be a love-it-or-hate-it book. I usually like such books. Have heard it can be a little precious; I don't have a taste for the saccharine, so I worry.

CHOICE #2

THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, by Stieg Larsson

I was crazy about Smilla (of Smilla's Sense of Snow Fame, back in her heyday) so I'm liking the idea of this one. But I'm also hearing that it's slow to start and that the pacing doesn't necessarily pick up. And I need a good absorbing read for my trip.

CHOICE #3

THE THIRTEENTH TALE, by Diane Setterfield

I love a good Gothic, and this one is supposed to be Bronte-esque homage to the genre. But I've heard detractors say it's pretentious and long-winded, with an unappealing heroine. I like a complicated heroine, but have heard this one described as a "bore" by several people whose opinion I respect. So I worry.

November 03, 2009

Well, I have to thank the readership of Mysterious Matters for making me feel as though I have arrived as a blogger. I'm late with this most recent blog, and a few readers have written to ask me if I'm doing OK. Doing fine (thanks for asking); I just tend to write when the spirit moves me as opposed to on any specific schedule. And a few things have come up....

A couple of weeks ago I talked a bit about blurbing. I forgot about what may be the most massive case of over-blurbing I have ever encountered. Check out the hardcover of Celia Fremlin's Possession, published in 1969 by Gollancz. By the way, I should go on record as saying that I think Fremlin is simply a superb writer, one whom I go back to annually just to sharpen myself on her prose.

Now, several things come to mind about this cover:

1. Have you ever seen the front cover of a hardback, by such a respected and established writer, so overdone? What I find most odd is that the blurbs do not even mention the titles of Fremlin's previous books, which the public is more likely to recognize than the names "Pat Wallace" and "E.D. O'Brien." Certainly such praise is worthy of the back cover...but all of this on the front cover, instead of an interesting image or type treatment? (Hey, at least the author got her name in red.)

2. Check out the names on the back cover. Some of these names have survived the intervening 40 years and remain in circulation. The late Dell Shannon still has a following, as does Emma Lathen. Michael Innes and Hillary Waugh are also in the "firmly established, if less read" league. But what became of Judson Philips, Edmund McGirr, V.C. Clinton-Baddeley, Lynton Lamb, and Jean Potts? If any readers have had experience with these writers, please click on the COMMENTS button below and tell us about them. I admit I've not heard of any of them, and I wonder what I have been missing. The greater question is, of course: Does this list represent a microcosm of the mystery-publishing world, where some gain fame and readership, while others quietly fade away or are consigned to the dustbin of history? And, most importantly, does quality have anything to do with it?

3. The above thoughts are relevant to this week's internal dialogue because it's occurred to me recently that today's mystery authors are working harder than I've ever seen to establish themselves. The crop out there right now is fairly desperate to achieve a level of familiarity, sales, and royalties that will provide them with continued contracts and livable income. The word "desperate" may have a pejorative connotation, but I don't mean it that way. What I mean is that so many writers want so badly to be best-sellers, or at least good-sellers; more so than at any time in my career.

And I think I know why this is the case, and I think it has to do with the economy. Let's face it, life in the working world has become pretty complicated and annoying in the last decade. There's no longer the concept of "corporate loyalty" as jobs go overseas and workforces are shredded. Meanwhile, we continue to get other bad economic news. This has been going on for a while, so can anyone blame people who want to chuck it all? The dream of being able to stay at home, sit at your keyboard and tell stories, and have people scoop them up as soon as they're published, is a powerful one. What an idyllic life it would be, all the more so because it would pay the bills and avoid the hassles of commuting and/or an idiotic boss. Yes, there would be those pesky editors imposing their deadlines and forcing covers on you that you don't like, but all in all, it would be a pretty darn lovely lifestyle--the antithesis of what most people go through to make a living in this day and age.

Of course, it isn't realistic, for all the reasons discussed not only on Mysterious Matters but also all over the Web. As we all know, everyone loves a free book and does everything in their power NOT to buy new ones. Reviewers think nothing of selling books they've received but haven't reviewed. Advances are getting smaller (and rightfully so), with something like 85% of first-timers not even earning out their advance. The dream of a large royalty check will remain a dream for most people, which is why we see so many "older" writers submitting manuscripts. With their golden parachute or with the aid of a spouse who supports them, they can take the time to "write," but more than that they can afford to jump through the really ridiculous set of hoops that they have to in order to get published. And then what happens? The books disappear, like those of Jean Potts and Helen McCloy, never to be seen again. This is why I have said in the past, and I will say again, that writing fiction should never be considered anything beyond a hobby--especially if you have a family to support.

I realize this sounds a bit downbeat; and honestly I curse the Internet for its ability to endlessly resell books, which have deprived publishers and authors of reasonable revenue and income. That said, I do think we'll be around for at least a while longer. I myself could not afford to do this job if I were a younger man attempting to pay a mortgage and feed my children.